Background. The authors conducted a study to determine which of four consultation methods helped patients best understand a proposed treatment plan for maxillary anterior diastema closure.
Methods. The authors presented 24 subjects with four types of consultation in random order: before-and-after photographs of other patients, diagnostic models with wax setups, resin-based composite/esthetic preview/mock-ups and computer-imaging simulations. After viewing each method, the authors asked the subjects about treatment acceptability. At the end of the demonstrations of all four methods, the authors asked the subjects which consultation method helped them best understand the proposed treatment plan.
Results. A total of 87.5 percent of the subjects indicated that they would accept the proposed treatment plan after they were shown the computer-imaging simulation, 50 percent said they would after they were shown the resin-based composite/esthetic preview/mock-up, 41.7 percent said they would after they were shown photographs of other patients, and 25 percent said they would after they were shown diagnostic models with wax setups. When asked which method helped them best understand the proposed treatment, 54.2 percent of the subjects selected computer-imaging simulation, 33.3 percent selected resin-based composite/esthetic preview/mock-ups, and 12.5 percent selected before-and-after photographs of other patients. None of the subjects selected diagnostic models with wax setups. A 
2 test for goodness of fit indicated that these differences were statistically significant.
Conclusion. Subjects preferred computer-imaging simulation to the other three consultation methods, and they indicated that computer-imaging simulation provided a better understanding of the proposed treatment plan for diastema closure.
Clinical Implications. The use of computer-imaging simulation enhances the patient’s understanding of a proposed treatment plan concerning maxillary anterior diastema closure.
